the true knowledge and real belief of fallen hierarchies, of apostate spirits, of "the Devil and his angels." These must be shown to be real entities, not chimeras; literal truths, not phantasies; positive agents, and not figures of speech. They must not be modestly sceptical, in certain portions of revelation, but bold and fearless believers up to the full standard of revelation. They must not only believe in angels "who keep their first estate," but in angels, messengers of Satan, that have fallen, and that "are reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day." In repudiating purgatory, they must not deny Tartarus. They must not imagine that the Devil is converted into "an angel of light," and no longer walketh up and down the earth "seeking whom he may devour," as a lion ravenous for his prey.

We must not fear the scoffings of real infidels, under the guise of professed rationalists. We must put to silence and to shame "the ignorance of foolish men," and boldly avow our belief that Satan yet is. We must not prove recreant to our profession of believing and teaching the Bible, the whole Bible, as the book of God and the rule of faith-the measure of Christian knowledge and of Christian duty.

Satan is not yet "bound for a thousand years," nor his angels asleep. And we must not feel as though we were out of that world that yet "lies under the dominion of the Wicked One;" but we must arm ourselves for the good combat-" put on the whole armor of God; the shield of faith, the sword of the Spirit, the helmet of salvation, having our feet shod with the preparation of the "gospel of peace," that we may quench the fiery javelins, the poisoned arrows, from Satan's quiver. Praying always, with all prayer and supplication of the spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints," our fellow-soldiers in the camp of Israel. Let us fight the good fight of faith, that we may lay hold of eternal life.

66

A. C.

"KNOW THYSELF," was written in golden capitals upon the splendid temple of Delphos, as the most important maxim which the wise men of Greece could hand down to unborn generations. The scriptures require us to "search our own hearts, and try ourselves," and the entire experience of mankind bears testimony that SELFknowledge is the most important of all knowledge.

VIEWS OF Dr. LYND ON THE BIBLE QUESTION.

Review of arguments employed at the Annual Meeting of the American and Foreign Bible Society, against a Revised Version of the English Scriptures. [Continued from page 200.]

THE Rev. Dr. Ide, of Philadelphia, proposed three reasons in favor of the restrictive resolution, and, of course, against an amended version. The first was his opinion that we have no need of a revised English version. The second was, that we could not accomplish it, if we should try. And the third was, that we ought not to attempt it. Let us try this logic on the opposite side. It is my opinion that we need a revised version. We can accomplish it if we try. We ought to do it.

In his speech he stated that the Greek word baptizo means to dip in, and take out again; that immerse means to sink, and you may immerse and never take out again. I have seen this statement once by a very small critic, but I did not expect to see it from Dr. Ide. The word is used in classical writings, where it is applied to things which are never taken up, as well as to things which are immediately taken up. The word means to dip, but it can neither include the taking out, nor the remaining under. The same application is as true of the English word immerse, as it is of the Greek word baptizo. Let Dr. Ide sustain his position by plain examples of specific terms, and he will greatly oblige those who have thus far labored in vain to find even one example. In order to excite him to this effort, we will kindly provoke him, by asserting that his position is the most perfect nonsense that ever proceeded from human lips.

Deacon Colgate spoke in favor of a new version. He presented thirty-one questions, but no attempt was made to ans ver even one of them, notwithstanding those in opposition were confessedly speaking to the merits of the question.

The Rev. Russel Jennings made a few remarks which are worthy of record. He said, “I have preached as well as I knew how, and then have gone home, and taken down the original text, and found I had been perverting God's word. Finally, I came to the conclusion that I dare not preach without comparing my text with the original." Very few ministers of the gospel would dare to preach from a text without doing the same thing, for their experience has taught them that it is unsafe.

Bro. Jennings further remarked, "I don't believe the time has come for a change, but I believe it will come."

This is doubtless the sentiment of many of our brethren, in all parts of the country, as it appears to me, that it is the only question that can rationally arise in the premises. But how is the proper time for this enterprise to be ascertained? Will it be the proper time when all evangelical denominations unite in the work? How many generations may pass away before this union occurs? It would be desirable to have all Christians unite in this work, but is this absolutely necessary? Besides, upon what ground do we mainSERIES IV.-VOL. I.

21*

tain that evangelical Christians, and they alone, shall prepare an amended version? Are there not thousands of Roman Catholics, and of denominations not regarded as evangelical, who use the English language? Shall they be excluded from participation? It may be said, that they would not unite in this measure. True, but they have their reasons for this, which they consider sufficiently good. And if Pedobaptists evangelical will not unite in this work, it is because they have reasons which they consider sufficiently good. Upon what principle are we to wait for the concurrence of evangelical denominations, and not wait for the concurrence of all who are interested in an amended version? Every one can perceive that if we wait for all to concur, the work must be indefinitely postponed. If we wait for a part to concur, what part shall it be? If one sect will not agree to it, because no foundation would remain for diocesan bishops, and all other denominations would oppose it because it would have no ground for sprinkling or pouring, is the work, therefore, never to be done? If the union of all denominations that are considered evangelical is essential to this work, when will it be done? Will the time ever arrive? Such a union is utterly impracticable. If, then, it must, in any event, be done by a part of the Christian world, why not by the Baptists? How is the right time to be ascertained?

In any enterprise of great magnitude, to which powerful oppcsition may be created, or, which involves, on the part of those to be engaged in it, almost overwhelming responsibility, the time to commence, in most cases, would never arrive, but for special interpositions of divine providence. God determines the proper season for such enterprises. How did the Baptists in this country arrive at the conclusion, that the time had arrived for them to engage in the Foreign Mission work? God settled the precise time, by bringing Judson and Rice to the acknowledgment of Baptist views and practices. In relation to this revision movement, many of us throughout the country, members and officers of the American and Foreign Bible Society had thought for many years upon the desirableness of the measure. But the time did not appear to have arrived.

During the year 1849, brethren Cone and Wyckoff prepared and published, on their own responsibility, an amended version of the New Testament, that the denomination might have an opportunity of determining what could be done in this matter. They proposed to give the plates to the Society for their use. It produced great excitement throughout our denomination, and mainly for the reason that the design was not understood. The Society at their Annual Meeting in 1850, not only put a stop to this measure, but absolutely restricted the managers, in the circulation of the English scriptures, to the commonly received version, declaring that it was not their duty, or their province to attempt on their own part, or to procure from others, an amended version of the English scriptures.

The Society did not restore the restriction, which had been removed at the previous annual meeting, in the words, "until other“wise directed by the Society," and thus leave the question open as to the proper time for a revised version; but so constructed their resolutions that thousands of Baptists, in this country, cannot co-operate

with them, and maintain a clear conscience. To defend a great fundamental principle, we have been driven to the necessity of forming a Bible Union upon the principle of giving the Bible, in the most perspicuous and faithful versions that can be procured, to all nations. This principle appeals to the Christian heart and conscience; and thus God, by His providence, has fixed the time. The time has arrived, and God smiles upon the enterprise. The voice comes up from thousands on thousands throughout our land, in favor of an amended version. Thousands more are only waiting to see that the plan for accomplishing the end is a wise and safe one, to add their voice to the demand.

The time has arrived. There never will, in all probability, be a period more favorable to this enterprise. Look at the added milHons to our population, that, in a few years, will read and speak the English language, whose Bible will be the English Bible, and who will unquestionably adopt that version which is most perspicuous and faithful. These millions will come from the old corrupt hierarchies, to the light of primitive Christianity. Let no word be in our English version for them which will detain them to the wrong side of Christianity, or which will allow them to come short of the whole truth.

It is desirable that we should have an amended English version, and God, by his providence, seems to say, "the day has arrived." What more do we need? Let us go forward in the name and in the fear of God, and we shall accomplish a great work in our generation; yea, future generations will bless the hour when this enterprise originated. S. W. LYND.

COVINGTON, January 9, 1851.

SLAVERY AND THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW-No. II.

THE growing importance of this subject constrains me to engross, in a short compass, my views on the whole premises, pressed upon my attention by so many solicitations from all quarters and from all sides of this all-exciting subject. I will, therefore, in as short a space as possible, and with as much perspicuity as I can, comply with the wishes of many friends. The questions proposed are:

1. Is not what is usually called American Slavery, disallowed by the Christian moral law?

2. Can a Christian man, enlightened in the New Testament, religiously hold in perpetual servitude a human being?

3. Does not the golden rule require a Christian man to succor and relieve a brother man, when in distress?

4. Can, therefore, a Christian man, with the fear of God before his eyes,

sustain or comply with the requisitions of the Fugitive Slave Law, enacted at the last session of our Congress?

A precise and perspicuous answer is most respectfully and earnestly solicited to these four questions, BY MANY.

RESPONSE.

1. Is not what is usually called American Slavery, disallowed by the Christian moral law?

To be as precise and as perspicuous as the authors of these queries desire, I must premise a few thoughts on the terms of the first question: 1. American slavery is not so easily conceived. There may be much more embraced in American slavery, inasmuch as America is a large country, than I am aware of, or a majority of all who may read this query and my response. There is no uniform system, known to me, in America. Slave States have not all the same laws and usages in reference to slavery. The essential feature, or features, may be the same, and yet there may be very striking differences in its practice or use. But to come as near as possible to the views and wishes of the querists, I will state what I understand to be the essential attributes of American slavery:

1. American slavery, as a system, gives to an American citizen the legal right to purchase a black or colored human being, of African blood, and to hold him, during his natural life, in a state of bodily servitude, having no property in himself, but to be obedient to his master in all things compatible with the moral law of his Creator; and should he possess a wife belonging to his master, their issue, born during that relationship, belong to his master, as other living property.

In the 2d place, I will state what I mean by the Christian moral zaw; not, perhaps, what the querists might indicate by those terms.

The Christian moral law differs in nothing moral, from the law of ten commandments. That law is summed up, by the highest Christian authority, as being all comprehended in doing to another, what, in similar circumstances, we would desire him to do to us.

Preliminary to a direct and specific response to the preceding four questions, we must lay down certain propositions, as essential to correct scriptural views on the premises:

1. All the relations which one man may lawfully sustain to another, are laid down and established by divine authority.

2. The divine authority is published in documents collected into one volume, called, by way of pre-eminence, THE BIBLE.